Problem
M&A deal teams often track their active and inactive deals using some sort of pipeline view. When approaching this use-case, we sought to address several problems both internally and externally:
- A pipeline tool is an attractive revenue stream because it aligns with a subscription-based pricing model, as opposed to our core product, which is highly transactional.
- Several feature-rich, well-funded, M&A pipeline tools already exist in the market, but quantitative research has indicated that MS Excel is used by an overwhelming margin.
- Our core product (a “data room”), is extremely difficult to build upon, due to its age.
Discovery
If we wanted to bring a new pipeline offering to the M&A market, we needed to understand why existing products do not seem to have significant market-share when compared with Excel-based pipeline tracking. After several rounds of discovery and validation interviews, as well as some auxiliary quantitative surveying, we collected the following findings:
- Excel is extremely flexible when it comes to labeling and capturing data, and requires very little training to use.
- Due to it’s ubiquity, Excel is often used at a nominal cost.
- Deal teams use a wide range of tools to manage their pipeline and they are decently satisfied with them.
- Competitor products often seek to replace all aspects of a customer’s process.
Additionally, this research gave us the perspective that our core product, the data room, is considered just one tool in an M&A process, while our data room was designed to express itself as the most important thing in M&A.
Solution
With the results of our initial discovery, we re-framed our overall strategy to fit the following tenets:
- The deal is more important than our data room.
- Fit with a customer’s existing process, don’t replace it.
Following this, we began building our next iteration that uses a “Deal” as the highest common denominator. Additionally, we created a low-friction way for our customers to collect M&A documents from their clients without adding additional steps to their process.
Due to the potential for this product to disrupt our existing products, we implemented the following processes in and around the design and product teams:
- Radical transparency — Although it could be painful and slow, consistent and frequent collaboration with all R&D stakeholders saved us weeks or months of pain down the road.
- Always be learning — Monthly or bi-monthly research sessions with actual users. Historically this was difficult, and we over-relied on internal experts.
Results
When our product hit our pool of early adopters, we received uniquely positive signals to keep going. As such, the business threw more resources behind our effort, and several other designers and teams have shifted their focus to begin collaborating on our new platform.
Furthermore, the momentum we started has deepened our team’s reputation as active collaborators and researchers.